Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
Stories and Videos
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers asked for clarification about the measurement of primary outcome for the study and whether the outcome was a composite as described in their Clinicaltrials.gov registration. The researchers explained the three parts of the primary outcome: identification of depression symptoms, confirmation that the symptoms warrant further evaluation, and initiation of treatment by the student identified. The researchers examined the percentage of each of these outcomes out of the total students in each trial arm. The researchers explained that they had initially considered this a composite outcome but previous reviewers preferred for the three metrics to be discussed individually.
- The reviewers expressed concern about the delivery of the intervention by school staff rather than trained professionals and the resulting low rate of treatment initiation for students exhibiting depressive symptoms. The researchers explained that staff confirming depression diagnoses were trained for this work, and that requiring an outside professional to confirm diagnoses would have made implementation of the universal screening more prohibitive for many schools. The researchers also acknowledged the low rate of treatment initiation compared to the number of students identified as depressed but noted that they only measured treatment initiation within the Student Assistance Program and did not track whether students received treatment outside of the program.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results